I posted a question regarding James Laube’s use of the term “earthy” in the last Wine Spectator issue to express flaws in wine. We decided it made sense since he was talking about California wine. He baffled me again in the current issue, but I’m sure I am just again misinterpreting what he is saying.

He said, “I don’t think there’s anything rational, or sane, about paying $750 to $1,000 a bottle for any wine. That’s one reason I stopped buying Bordeaux a few years ago…Yes, I know there are plenty of excellent wines from Bordeaux that sell for a fraction of the first-growths’ prices, and yes, I still like to drink Bordeaux. I just have to egg by friends on to open theirs.”

So, first, where was he buying Bordeaux en primeur for $750 and $1,000 a bottle years ago? And why, when everybody else could buy it much cheaper?

Secondly, what could possibly be a reason besides price that could stop a man from buying a certain available kind of wine that he liked? Was it simply that he knew he could get it free?

If I knew that a “friend” was too cheap to buy a bottle of wine for himself, and instead came to my house to drink my wine in order to save a buck, he wouldn’t be invited back.

But, again, what am I missing? Maybe he bought with him an equivalently priced Cal Cab.

Covert, what you are missing is the nuances of conversation, as opposed to a literal reading of each and every word he wrote.

Laube did not buy 1st growth for $750 a bottle, but that's what it costs now (at least some of the 1st equivalents, e.g. Cheval Blanc, Ausone). Plus there are many folks out there with money to burn and who like to share. Heck...drink their wine. I'm sure Laube has plenty of cellar gems to share in trade for a taste of the 1sts.

If you choose to read any columnist this literally you are going to have this "what the $%^&*" moments. Try not to take each and every word so seriously/literally and you'll have a lot more fun.

There behind the glass lies a real blade of grass. Be careful as you pass. Move along. Move along.

My sense of the article is that it is foolish to fall in love with a specific wine to the point that you mindlessly keep buying it no matter what the price. There is plenty of afforable stuff out there, so if something gets out of reach, drop it and get something else. Good advise for a change from ole JL.

Carl Eppig (Middleton, NH wrote:My sense of the article is that it is foolish to fall in love with a specific wine to the point that you mindlessly keep buying it no matter what the price. There is plenty of afforable stuff out there, so if something gets out of reach, drop it and get something else. Good advise for a change from ole JL.

Laube demonstrates a firm grasp on the obvious by agreeing with everybody else that only the super wealthy can justify paying upwards to $1,000 for a bottle of wine (more often than very occasionally). But what does that have to do with him stopping the purchase of all Bordeaux, given that Laube also acknowledges that most of it is affordable? (In my opinion, Bordeaux is more affordable than comparable-quality New World Cab based wines.)

I've got a normal IQ (but I can understand how David might question said claim), so I can of course figure out what Laube is trying to say in the main, like everybody else; but it seemed to me that he also over-the-transomed a couple of pretty goofy but beguiling comments and I thought it might be fun to guess at whence they came.

I'm learning more about myself, however, in that nobody else seems to find any of it curiously interesting.

You are not exactly alone. I often find myself parsing what others mean, but generally it has to do not with what they mean, because often the context covers the meaning, but more about how well or how poorly they communicate what they mean.

In this case, I agree with you. He needed to explain whether he meant that he shuns all Bordeaux wines or just the ones he feels are over priced. I take him to mean the latter, but he never does say it that way so I could be wrong, which means that he did not communicate his thought well enough.

The bigger question is: why do we spend so much time on such small questions?

Thomas wrote: The bigger question is: why do we spend so much time on such small questions?

Thomas,

I have explained before my not-widely-held view that our issues originate within our psyches in energy states called archetypes. We pick symbols out of clumps of moving atoms ("objective reality") to express those inner drives, which themselves have no prior representation. If we don’t know we are doing it, it is normal to clutch onto “big issues,” because they are handed to us from newspapers and such. You can think about war or what is in your glass. I pick the latter type of symbol when I can. It is easier and more personal. We all have specific archetypes which require games to express. I don’t like normal kinds of games, such as cards or softball, but I like to play little games with articles that I read and such.

It’s kind of boring, but I have systematically addressed and put to bed every personal big issue already. I’ll let the pols take of war and the economy, and God can take care of inequities.